The Dragon Ball series, broadly speaking, illustrates the interrelations among individuals whose actions are dictated by their lust for power. This desire for power manifests itself in the quest for the dragon balls, which are said to grant wishes of anyone who has collected all seven of them. The Dragon Ball series, then, is a process of power struggle narrated from the viewpoint of Son Goku and his journey into the achievement of absolute power. In a sense, everyone fends for himself and everyone collects the dragon balls for his own gain. This is why Goku is suspicious of Bulma when they first meet. Bulma reasons well, knowing that his strength could be useful, when she decides to keep Goku close to her as her bodyguard, while intending to steal his dragon ball. In this way, a seed has been planted for a potential conflict in the future, and an ally has become at the same time an enemy.[1] This scheme is also seen in Dragon Ball Z, where Goku is defeated by Raditz and forms a coalition with his nemesis, Piccolo. It is a beneficial agreement for both of them, for Goku needs Piccolo’s help in order to save his son, Gohan, from Raditz, while Piccolo needs Raditz to be gone in order to defeat Goku with his own hand. In a similar manner, the seed for trouble unfolds itself naturally in both Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, involving those who aim to achieve the absolute power. What is unique to Goku, though, is that he wants power not for his own sake but for someone else’s. This may seem rather surprising and inaccurate, since all Goku cares for is to be strong simply because he wants to be strong. But if we look at how he fights and how he gets stronger each time, we can see that he is always fighting for someone else. It was his desire to help others for their sake that got him involved with the Red Ribbon Army in Dragon Ball. In the battle against Raditz, he chose to sacrifice himself over defeating his nemesis, Piccolo. The reason why he was able to become a Super Saiyan, thus attaining the power incomparable, too, was out of anger for Krillin’s death. This is strikingly different from any other character when they become stronger, as is most obvious from the battle against Frieza. Frieza’s strength comes from the humiliation he suffers, while Goku’s strength comes from the love for his friends. As we may remember, this is the truth about Goku’s strength as Vegeta also finally recognizes at the very end of the battle against Boo. The Dragon Ball series, then, is not simply an anime about selfish individuals’ fight against each other, but it is about what a powerful caring individual should do to protect the others when surrounded by the selfish individuals. It is a story of ethics in power politics of everyday life. The Dragon Ball series, through metaphoric means, teaches us how to maintain the good in us when confronted with the evil. In a way, the conclusion is contained in the beginning: once you have learned how to use power for someone else, you have achieved the absolute power that no one can take away from you. Goku may be said to have possessed from the beginning ‘the seed of this enlightenment’, and to that extent, he may have been the strongest of all from the very moment he decided to help Bulma in Mt. Paozu.
This article is therefore an attempt to guide you through some of the philosophical themes dispersed in the show to better understand the motivations for each character – that they are not random acts but rather are well-reasoned out intentions themselves. Sometimes, however, the meanings behind the actions are not intended by the producers of the anime, and perhaps we often give them our own meanings to them in understanding the art for its receptive nature. In what follows, I will elucidate the possible philosophical meanings behind each series and attempt to explain that the Dragon Ball series in fact have various intellectual frameworks at play as its substratum. And finally, I will argue that the Dragon Ball series keeps captivating our mind because it is grounded in the serious philosophical argument about human nature.
[In the North America, Dragon Ball Z is subdivided into several sagas, each of which are called, Vegeta Saga, Frieza Saga, Android Saga, Cell Saga and Boo Saga, respectively. Here, I will first discuss about the first two sagas, followed by the second two sagas, ending with Boo Saga. This division is not without reason, for I believe each segment of the series is thematically different. For instance, Vegeta and Frieza Sagas are about power, while the Android and Cell Sagas describe more of the philosophy of science. In what follows, I will argue that each segment presents itself as representing the philosophy of the author, Akira Toriyama. Further, I venture to divide these segments according to their themes, to which I might ascribe Political Philosophy to the first two sagas, Philosophy of Science to the second two sagas and Ethics to the last saga. In this part of the section, however, due to the constraint on the length of the article, I will only deal with the Political Philosophy segment of the Vegeta and Frieza sagas.]
Book I: Vegeta & Frieza Sagas as Power Struggle Between States
I: Stars incline but do not necessitate
Dragon Ball Z begins with the new introduction of Goku’s son, Gohan. The entire Dragon Ball Z story essentially derives from this one incident in the very first episode, when Gohan gets kidnapped by Raditz, one of the four Saiyans left in the entire universe. It turns out that Raditz is Goku’s only brother, and he has come from outer space all the way to Earth to urge Goku into helping him conquer the universe by force. Such a plan would involve destroying the Earth itself and eliminating Goku’s friends along the way. When Goku refuses to co-operate, Raditz takes Gohan as a hostage so Goku would have no choice but listen to him. Ultimately, however, Goku teams up with his nemesis, Piccolo, to defeat Raditz in order to save his friends and family as well as the Earth.
Now, what is important here is to realize that the seed has already been planted, and everything that happens afterward is naturally contained in the initial offense done by Raditz. It was indeed not Goku’s intent to get involved with any of the events that ensued. However, one may arguably say that the power hungry Saiyan would never have been satisfied with the status quo, hence his involvement was inevitable, although not necessitated. In this sense, Goku’s succeeding journey is termed as soft-deterministic. I think Leibniz’ soft-determinism is very much in accordance with this, for the journey was inclined to happen while not being necessitated to occur.[2] So what seemed like a simplistic catalyst in the anime was in fact dictated by the necessary conditions embedded in the characters themselves. This also explains rather flawlessly with consistency how each event follows one after another. In this way, it was inevitable as much as natural for Goku and Piccolo to have teamed up against Raditz, for Vegeta and Nappa to come to Earth in order to defeat Goku and get the dragon balls, and Goku’s eventual triumph over Vegeta, leaving Vegeta in a bitter defeat.
Here it is worthwhile to scrutinize a little more about the situations, for everything that happened in this Vegeta saga is a precondition for what was to happen in the Frieza saga. In order to support my argument that every event in these two sagas happened naturally, one event following after another without any structural jamming, as it were, let me use some historical examples to illustrate how convincing the story development of Dragon Ball Z really is. As I have argued, Gohan’s initial kidnap instigated the successive events that would last for years onwards. Here, the first episode contains everything that was to happen, just as Leibniz’s dictum that ‘predicate is contained in the subject’, so the succeeding events are merely unfolding of the events that have occurred previously.[3] This flow must be naturally determined, i.e. soft-determinism, in order to have a cogent effect.[4] So once again, what seemed rather an innocuous kidnapping of Gohan contained in itself Goku’s revenge against Raditz and how Raditz treated Gohan and everyone else naturally increased Goku’s anger against Raditz. Of course, the Saiyans qua Saiyans do not care about the feelings of the others, as also seen when Vegeta killed his companion, Nappa. It is ingrained in the philosophy of the Saiyans that they only care about satisfying their own curiosities for fighting and replenishing their hunger for power. Indeed, the Saiyan philosophy is no other than the philosophy of political realism, and as such, it is only concerned with itself and of its survival. It is essentially self-interested, and always revolves around the self-preservation and nothing more. Let me call this the Primitive Saiyan Philosophy, for Goku’s philosophy is fundamentally different, as we will see. While the Primitive Saiyan Philosophy is individualistic and singularistic in its view (i.e. it does not accept any other idea but its own; there is only one truth, which is its own, etc…), Goku’s Philosophy is pluralistic. Here is contained the seed for empathy and therefore leaves room for ethics. In this way, Vegeta and Goku can be contrasted as representing political realism and liberalism, respectively.[5]
In summarizing the events in Vegeta saga, it is Raditz’s independent action that led to Goku’s anger, which led to the bitter defeat of Vegeta in the end. To use one of the most recent and familiar historical examples, the similarity with the whole sequence of the Great Wars in the 20th century is rather striking. For just as the Austrian prince was killed (an individual, rather politically-motivated personal event, which developed into the series of events), which triggered the allied countries to jump into the quarrel, Gohan’s kidnap triggered Piccolo’s reluctant co-operation with Goku in fighting the common enemy. It was, however political, a personal event that happened at the Kame-House in the middle of nowhere that stirred up all the subsequent events. Further, if I may be allowed to reason parallel to the specific historical events of the World Wars, Vegeta’s bitter defeat is likened to Germany’s bitter defeat at the end of the World War I. Vegeta, then, is the embodiment of the philosophy of Adolf Hitler at this point (it is important to note here that Vegeta himself does not represent the historical Hitler, but rather emphatically the abstract ideology that Hitler adhered to, i.e. a reign by terror, or a totalitarian movement).[6] For instance, the idea that Saiyans are the true Aryan race and the true warrior of the universe. It was not only possible to be defeated by a lower-class Saiyan but also a disgrace to the entire elite class Saiyans of which there were only few left. Vegeta in fact gained, as he was defeated, a personal grudge against Goku and the political or racial justification to destroy the weaker class of the Saiyan who had held the wrong view about the universe and tried to disobey the chain of command. Like Hitler and many German soldiers at the end of the First Great War, the defeat became personal as well as political.
Going back a little to talk about the unfolding of the scenario, it makes sense that Vegeta and Nappa came to Earth, for the Primitive Saiyan Philosophy is self-interested and its sole interest is acquisition of power and exercising of destruction, which is why as soon as they arrived on Earth, the very first act of Nappa was the destruction of everything he saw.[7] This would have been the normal procedure, but as Vegeta was quick to point out, it was the acquisition of power and not the destruction of the planet that they came to Earth for, i.e. getting the dragon balls to gain the immortality. For why else would they have to travel such far away taking them a year to come to Earth, when in fact they could have exercised their power and enjoyed destruction in their nearby planets? Is it to defeat Goku, who was the only other Saiyan left in the universe that disobeyed them and now a threat to their survival? Possibly, but not enough to drag them out of the edge of the universe to Earth. Here, again, it is their self-interest that piqued their curiosity. Desire for the dragon balls moved them away from where they were, for in order not only to survive but also to acquire the absolute power, the use of the dragon balls was a necessity for them.
As soon as the Saiyans have arrived on Earth, Vegeta tries to find the ones who have the highest combat powers, since he believes that is the one who had killed Raditz. Thus, flying towards the ones with the strongest power level led them to Piccolo and Gohan, and Vegeta soon recognizes Piccolo is the one who killed Raditz as he recognized the voice from Raditz’s final scouter transmission.[8] Nappa then realizes that Piccolo is a Namekian, and Vegeta is reminded of the legend that the Namekians have strange powers that are likened to magic and some Namekians even have strong combat powers. The existence of the dragon balls had been very much in doubt for the incoming Saiyans since they still had some reservations as to the existence of dragon balls that could grant them any wish. However, meeting Goku’s companions and their clear expectation of Goku’s return from death, as well as the presence of a Namekian at least made some affirmation as to the possibility of the existence of such things. Vegeta and Nappa wanted to see how strong the Earthlings were, which prompted them to entertain themselves by letting their pet-monsters fight with Goku’s companions. Their pet-monsters, Saibai-man[9], were eventually defeated though not without ease, and Nappa was to fight with now 5-year old Gohan and Piccolo as well as the others.[10] But even Gohan and Piccolo who had become stronger than when they had fought against Raditz were no match against Nappa.
Now, Goku had sacrificed himself during the fight against Raditz and he had been dead – though his body was preserved like a glorified body[11] by the Earth’s god, kami, and sent to the lord of the worlds (i.e. Kaiō-sama) along with his soul in order that he could be trained to be stronger. Informed that Goku’s resurrection was imminent, the Saiyans decided to wait for Goku’s return, half incredulous and half curious, but mostly so that they can show the traitor, Goku, the deaths of his own friends and his son. In the meantime, Nappa decided that his time would be better spent destroying the rest of the planet until Goku arrives. When Goku was resurrected and approaches to return to them, Vegeta sensed that it would be better to kill Piccolo, Gohan and Krillin before Goku arrives, since Goku’s combat power was so much higher than the Saiyans had expected that Vegeta reasoned it would be cumbersome if four of them teamed up against himself and Nappa. In the battle against Nappa, before Goku could arrive, Piccolo had been killed protecting Gohan – the son of his nemesis, which clearly signaled the change of heart on Piccolo’s part, and for that reason it is itself a worthy topic for discussion since Piccolo was an evil spirit materialized that split out from kami but that would be a topic for another discussion. In the same episode, Krillin says something particularly interesting. When Nappa is ready for an attack, Krillin speaks to himself, “I feel like a Kamikaze Attacker,”[12] and also when, in the earlier episode, Chaiotzu has self-destructed himself to combat Nappa, Piccolo told Gohan who could not keep his eyes open, “[D]on’t look away; this is what a battle looks like.”[13]
It was only then that the resurrected Goku came back to the scene to save his son and Krillin who were barely arrive. Piccolo and the kami used to be the same person, hence one’s death entailed the other’s death, and as Piccolo died, kami also died. This had a deeper implication for the Saiyans who came to the Earth for the dragon balls as well, since the dragon balls were made by kami and when kami died, the dragon balls also ceased to exist. However, on seeing the connection of the dragon balls with Piccolo, Vegeta had earlier figured out that the dragon balls were probably the artifacts created by Namekians, which turned out to be the root (i.e. race) of Piccolo, hence of kami. This is the reasoning behind Vegeta’s decision that it would become a little laborious if Piccolo and the others teamed up with Goku, hence Vegeta decided that Piccolo was dispensable. The priority thus now shifted from collecting the dragon balls, which could be found anyway if they went to the planet Namek, to terminating Goku the traitor. This “shifting the priorities” will become important as the plot thickens, as that is how real actors in the power struggle act out. But for the moment, the information Vegeta could gather about the dragon balls was enough to have come to Earth, he concluded, and all he needed to do now was to exterminate the vermin that had damaged the Saiyan race along with the planet Earth. As soon as Goku arrived, however, Nappa was made useless in mere one blow from Goku.[14] Seeing this, Vegeta realized two things – one thing was that Nappa had no existential value as Vegeta said in response to Nappa’s plea to help, “a Saiyan who cannot fight is of no use.”[15] Having blown up his only companion, Nappa, he then noticed Goku’s countenance and realized something had completely changed from the time Goku had fought against Raditz. This quick wit and ability to discern and judge in an instance is what makes Vegeta the genius of warriors.
Now, I have skimmed through some of the events in passing, but a lot has happened in the events described. Firstly, Vegeta is, contrary to Nappa, equipped with cold blooded intelligence that does not allow him to act on impulse. What killed Nappa was the lack of calculation and the inability to judge the circumstance at a moment’s notice. Furthermore, while Vegeta shares with Goku some genuine talent such as calculative combat styles and over-confidence in his own strength, he and Goku have crucial differences in the sources of their confidences. While Vegeta is confident in his superiority, Goku is confident in his potentiality – one sees power as absolute and complete while the other sees it as developing and has room for improvement. While Vegeta only believes his own power, Goku believes in co-operation. This is nowhere more obvious than when Vegeta deliberately killed Nappa while he could have still used and relied on what little strength Nappa had, whereas Goku relied and believed in his companions until the very end of the battle. This unique confidence is why Goku was able to give the last senzu bean[16] to dying Krillin and Gohan as soon as he had arrived at the battle scene. He did not even hesitate, though he fully knows it would be to his advantage to keep it for himself during the battle. Further, both Gohan and Krillin, for instance, were technically “useless” towards the end of the fight against Vegeta, to borrow Vegeta’s word. In this way, Goku demonstrated the combination of power as strength, but this would require the willful participation of the parties involved. In other words, the parties involved all must work together for the common goal. In opposition, Vegeta eliminated the force he deemed unnecessary or could possibly be detrimental in the future to his maintaining absolute power while still innocuous to him. This is also a good strategy[17] and used often in political realism, yet it also isolated him in the end. In this way, Vegeta suffered a bitter defeat in the face of the team effort of the lower class Saiyan and “terrestrial race”. Goku did have the chance to kill Vegeta before the latter could escape, but he chose not to kill him. This ability to choose and having an autonomy would play a huge part in Goku’s philosophy and his essence, which will later be discussed amply in discussing liberalism. Let it be sufficed for now to merely gloss it over and to say that there is a clear philosophical strategy embedded in this action. First, having the kind of the character trait Goku does, it was not possible to end his new nemesis’ life, however contradictory it may seem. For Goku was a Saiyan, and despite, or perhaps because of, his belief in the team effort, Vegeta was the only Saiyan left in the universe besides Goku himself, and it was evident that Goku could not have killed his only kin or “family” left in the universe, even if it would mean to have to fight with him again. This was the moment when for the first time a clear thesis was presented against the antithesis – Goku as the liberal warrior was met with Vegeta as the realist warrior. Both belonged to the same race, but their philosophy of fighting went separate ways. How would these two “theses” play out in the future to come? It is in the following chapters that the answer is to be unfolded, and just as the First Great War ended prematurely, leaving very many unsatisfied, the main players of the power struggle in Dragon Ball Z saga are also headed for the great collision. These actions were surely inclined but by this time they were becoming to seem slowly but solidly necessitated by the previous perceptions, i.e. will, of each character.
II: Transformations in the Power Struggle
In the history of political thought, it is not strange to see transformations occur frequently. Though often these transformations are manifested in terms of forms of government, they can occur within the framework of a government as phases. This is well illustrated by Hannah Arendt, a prominent political philosopher whose extensive research on cruelty conducted under a totalitarian regime led her to reveal some of the important distinctions between a totalitarian government and a mere tyrannical and despotic government ruled by a dictator. She argues in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, that there can be roughly four stages or phases when dictatorial government is on the rise. In the beginning, before ascending to power, such a government, whether it be a totalitarian or despotic, must appeal to the public to at least temporarily gain support from the ignorant masses and organize a mob like mentality. In this first stage to power, they carefully make distinctions between the state and their movement, and by repeatedly calling the former the enemy of the people, and by insisting that the masses will be safer and will be well taken care of under this ruler than any other one, the masses come to believe that their claim must be true through repetition (i.e. consistency), which imparts confidence of the party leader on the masses over time.[18] In combination with the rhetorical consistency with the use of what is known as a “power propaganda” in Nazi Germany, for instance, which was nothing but a demonstration by means of a violent intimidation, it became clear that the power of the Nazis was greater than that of the authorities. It is in this way that Frieza presumably had gathered his underlings and convinced them that they would be better off siding with Frieza, the sovereign who reigns over the entire universe.[19] For Frieza never neglects this type of propaganda when he tries to convince the Namekians to give him the dragon balls, that is, by fear of intimidation by killing some of the strongest Namekians as well as children in the village for as a demonstration in front of everyone else.
The second phase is concerned with once such a regime is in power. It moves on to utterly destroying the previously occupied offices and filling them with its own party members so the incoming dictator ruler can have the complete amalgamation of the state and the party. However, a totalitarian ruler goes beyond, for he wants to concentrate the elite powers on the center of the movement and not wasted on the administrative issues. For a totalitarianism is a movement distinct from a state (which is stationary), and as such it uses the state as an outward façade and escapes the total amalgamation with the state by placing the second-rate officers in the hierarchy. This is because “[o]ne should never forget that only a building can have a structure, but that a movement … can have only a direction,” and that any form of governmental structure “can be only a handicap to a movement which is being propelled with increasing speed in a certain direction,” for any structures would necessarily limit the space of activity.[20] This is why Frieza is never at Planet Frieza, giving orders, but always at the center of the movement, as if a magnet constantly moving across the universe and extracting the strong warriors from the inhabitants of the planets.[21] In this phase of the totalitarian regime, the secret police are also instilled and the task of the secret police is to ferret out secret enemies, hunt down former opponents and liquidate both open and secret resistance in any organized form.[22] This can be again likened with the scene where King Vegeta both openly and secretly rebels against Frieza leading to the destruction of Planet Vegeta (though technically, Planet Vegeta was not the previous government to which Frieza took over, and the Saiyans are best described as an auxiliary force employed by Frieza).[23] The third phase in the totalitarian regime is to identify the “objective enemy” whose existence is contrary to the movement.[24] It is here where the form of the totalitarian regime is more distinctly manifested, for terror in the name of total domination is finally carried out, the content of which is to destroy a moral human being and rid him of spontaneity. Arendt describes it well, when she says “to destroy individuality is to destroy spontaneity, man’s power to begin something new out of his own resources, something that cannot be explained in the basis of reactions to environment and events.”[25] This is why Planet Namek was in the process of recovery after un unknown environmental tragedy, where all the beautiful plants and flowers as well as a large portion of the population were wiped out. It was the spontaneity of the Namekians who acted on their own accord to plant and cultivate the planet into the beautiful place it once was before. It is also the same reason why Frieza took that spontaneity away from them by destroying the people as well as the plantations when attacking a village. For Frieza, this spontaneity is that which could threaten his universal reign, and therefore that which must be dominated as well as liquidated. The fourth phase is simply the radicalization of the third, triggered by events that make the action hasten. In the case of the Nazis Germany, the outbreak of war hastened the process, and in the case of Frieza, the stronger enemy hastened the transformation and the degree to which he has become destructive, as will be discussed below in detail.
I have spent some time on looking at the transformations in totalitarian regime, specifically because it deals with the core factor of what Frieza represents, i.e. terror. Now that the backbone of the politics involved in Planet Namek has been discussed, and the central enemy of what each character is up against on Planet Namek has been introduced, it is time to discuss about the types of transformations in more specific forms.
Transformations can be seen in various forms of governments such as in despotisms, liberal democracies, monarchies, or totalitarianisms. For by transformation, I understand three types: first, by means of phases within the boundary of limit; second, by means of transcending the boundary of the limit; third, by means of fusing with the other powers. The first instance is seen in totalitarian governments and the other forms of government similarly organized such as despotic or tyrannical as discussed above by referencing to Arendt. The second instance is manifest in cases of revolutions, i.e. overthrowing the presently residing government from within the state, as if to rise from below. The third type is that of the unification of countries, in which case, there is always a problem of identity. In fact, the nature of unification is such that it can only happen through coercion (e.g. by means of imperialism, or in aligning with the examples of the Great Wars, Germany occupying Austria and its invasion of Poland, etc…) or through cooperation. The latter case of unification is the only successful one since both parties are willing to be united and come to agreement willingly, thus preserving some identity of each nation as opposed to eliminating one or the other as in the case of the coercive unification of the former type. And it is obvious that such a peaceful unification can only occur among liberal democratic nations since they tend to allow pluralism by nature.[26] Each of these types of transformations can be seen in Dragon Ball Z.
Transformation by phases occurs when it is within one’s ability to transform into something else as it becomes no longer useful to stay in the current form (since the steps in which this happens with regard to governmental forms and organizational structures have been discussed above, here I will only deal with the specific individual transformations). Thus, Vegeta only transforms into the Great Ape when he judges it necessary. Zarbon’s transformation is the same in that the situation required him, or else he would not have transformed.[27] Frieza’s transformation is also rendered in similar steps taken by the totalitarian regimes – his transformation was ready as well as necessary to move to the next phase. There is something curious about this transformation pattern, for in all cases, the transformer hides the ability to phase up, as it were, and does not reveal until it is ready and necessary to do so.[28] Though, to be fair, this is how the international actors perform in power struggle, for no nation would send in every force they possess all at once, especially when the opponent appears to be much weaker. Every state wants to conserve energy as much as possible for as long as possible.
Transformation of transcendence, which is likened to political revolution, is evidently of the reference to the transformation into Super Saiyan. For to become a Super Saiyan, one needs to overthrow the present self and go beyond the limit set by oneself. It is still a qualitative change, since the substance, i.e. the self, remains the same, as is also the case in the political revolution when its own citizens revolt against the autonomous government, angered by the latter’s treatment. It is also quite intriguing and noteworthy to see that the transformation into Super Saiyans requires anger as the motive force. However, once again, if we compare this type of transformation to the political revolutions, where citizen body is so helplessly oppressed that they cannot take it any longer, it becomes blatantly obvious how such a transformation must occur and why it is always triggered by anger followed or incited by the realization of its own powerlessness. When looked at this way, it also makes sense why Vegeta was able to transform into a Super Saiyan later in the season; for when Goku became a Super Saiyan, Frieza asked what he was, to which Goku responded, “a legendary warrior with a gentle heart, who was awakened by rage, I am Son Goku the Super Saiyan.”[29] Frieza then joked why it was impossible for Vegeta to become one, since Vegeta did not have a gentle heart.[30] But this statement is almost immediately contradicted in the following season when Vegeta became Super Saiyan, when it led Krillin to inevitably ask the question, “Aren’t you supposed to have a gentle heart to become a Super Saiyan?” Vegeta’s response does not seem to satisfy our curiosity, for he only says, referring to his strenuous training, “I was gentle and pure, but a pure evil.”[31] Suddenly, the necessary quality for becoming a Super Saiyan shifted from “having a gentle heart” to “having a pure (evil) heart.” This was never explained and was glossed over. Neither Goku nor the legend ever said anything about the quality of being pure hearted. For the Japanese word used for “gentle” is odayaka (穏やか) and it means “calm, quiet, peaceful”, and “pure” is junsui (純粋), which means “transparency, homogeneity, selflessness” – sure, a link can be made through being calm to being selfless, or even through being peaceful to being pure in the ordinary sense. But if “being pure” here is invoked by “being peaceful”, then Vegeta’s reason that he was “being pure evil” does not square with the legend and pass the necessary quality of being gentle in the sense of being peaceful. Such a statement can only make sense if the transformation can occur only through anger necessitated by the underlining theme of being powerless. Thus, Goku was being gentle in the sense that he was a peaceful person, yet forced to realize his own powerlessness to protect his allies, was awakened by anger to become a Super Saiyan. Similarly, Vegeta was being pure in the sense that he was an evil person, yet forced to realize his own powerlessness to exercise that evil, and perhaps more frustrated since he was saved by the goodwill of Goku, was awakened by anger to become a Super Saiyan. For nothing frustrates and forces the evil to realize its own powerlessness more than being saved by the good force.
Transformation via merging with other powers is either through coercion or through co-operation, as has been stated. This type of transformation is likened in politics to the unification of nations as manifested in the formation of the Roman Empire, the United States or the constitutional union of Austria-Hungary, or the annexation of Austria with Nazis Germany, and so on so forth. Both of the latter two examples were dissolved by defeat. The transformation by merging as well as the dissolution of it can be seen throughout the seasons in Dragon Ball Z. Piccolo’s merging with Nail in the battle against Frieza is one instance of it, and the others include Cell’s coercive merging with the Androids, Piccolo’s re-merging with kami, Goten and Trunks’ fusion,[32] Goku and Vegeta’s fusion via potara, to name a few. The dissolution often happens by defeat or disagreement with the host body among the enemies, for they tend to attempt to dominate the objects of their merge by force, which results in a cacophonous relationship with the host body. This is why neither Cell nor Boo were able to achieve a homogeneous union with the merged bodies and ended up often spewing out the bodies once taken in, because their bodily constituents were both foreign and powerful enough to refuse to be fully integrated into the new host. In other words, their identity remained separate and heterogeneous from the host, which meant that the merge always assumed a hierarchical relationship, one dominant and the others subordinate. This is demonstrated when Cell talks to Android 18 through the voice of Android 17, for example.[33] It shows there is no respect for the identity of the merged individual, nor is there any will of the mutual governance of the main body, which has been proven time and again through history that it only results in disharmony within the state body, leading to the eventual dissolution of the union. In fact, this type of transformation is so complex that it is beyond the scope of this portion of the essay to deal with it in detail, as also it happens mostly after Frieza saga. I will therefore here only mention in passing about the variations of this transformation and instead focus on the one and only example of transformation by merging that appears in Frieza saga. Merging can be achieved by 1) coercion or 2) cooperation, as has been mentioned, but each of these can also be sub-divided further into a) genuine or b) artificial. In the case of genuine merging, dissolution is difficult or impossible because the merged body is homogenously merged both in mind and in body, whereas in the case of artificial merging, the merged identities are somewhat preserved as distinct from one another although the body is one. Examples of this latter case are fusions of Goten and Trunks as well as of Goku and Vegeta, both of which can be thus termed as artificial fusion by means of cooperation. This explains why both of their voices are heard even in the fused body. Further, the merge of Cell with the androids or Boo with the main characters can be termed as artificial merge by means of coercion. On the contrary, a genuine merge can be achieved only through co-operation, for there cannot be any resistance in a genuine merge where both mind and body are united and the identity is integrated fully into the main host body. The instances in which this type of merge occur are only with regard to Piccolo. This merge can also expect the most increase in the power. In the like manner, an artificial merge by means of coercion can expect the least increase in power, when power is meant not only as a battle power in the quantitative aspect (i.e. measurable combat power with scouters, for instance) but also as a compatibility in the qualitative aspect (i.e. adaptability with the whole new body). This is why sometimes the host body can expect a better result in combat power by separating out the heterogeneous body that disobeys the host, as in the cases of Cell and Boo. Such dissolution, however rare, can also actually happen in the genuine merge, when the heterogeneous quality begins to grow in the body. For this is the reason why kami forced out Piccolo to get rid of the evil from himself.
Piccolo, then, has a rather unique status in the Dragon Ball series, for this type of union has two peculiar features that the other types of merge or transformations do not have. First is the incredible boost in power. Piccolo has merged twice in the entire Dragon Ball series, yet he has come to possess powers that could equal to Saiyans who have powered up several times. His strength indeed surpassed that of the Super Saiyans in the later seasons. Second, this merge is so complete that it does not dissolve by defeat, whereas all the other types of transformations do. So why is it so different in type from any other merge, let alone transformations? The secret appears to be found in the kind of mixture this merge produces, the stronger bond, as it were.
III: On the Conception of the Soul and Personal Identity in Dragon Ball Z
Now that various transformations that occur in Dragon Ball Z have been adequately introduced, there is one more anomaly that needs to be explained before moving on to the episode analysis in light of what has been discussed heretofore. A rather strange form of identity exchange happens when Captain Ginyū, one of the Frieza’s henchmen, uses his attack called “Body Change”.[34] This brings us to the conception of the soul and personal identity. While it is somewhat tangential to the extent that it is not related to the political theme of this essay, it is nevertheless necessary to explore it, as it plays a pivotal role throughout the series.
In Dragon Ball Z, a soul appears to be treated as an immaterial yet corporeal substance in lieu of the ‘common’ notion of what a soul may be.[35] It is immaterial in the sense that it is not a stuff to be tangible that occupies a certain space with a certain shape but extends to all of the body parts and does not diminish in quantity even if a part of the body is cut off. It is corporeal in the sense that it can be in motion (for whatever moves in space needs some corporeity), though usually invisible to the eye. It may be best likened to be some sort of energy or life force much like qi energy, or more scientifically speaking, an aggregate of atoms or corpuscles, or ethereal photons. A soul, then, is what has both of these attributes: immateriality and corporeity. This is most obvious when Goku died for the first time in the battle against Raditz. Goku’s soul ascended into heaven along with the spiritual body that kami had arranged for him.[36] The souls were here seen to have motion in the form of flames, much like those of will-o’-the-wisp, waiting in line to be judged whether or not they will go to the heaven or to the hell.[37] That this is the case is further evidenced by what happens at the end of the Frieza saga, when Vegeta suggests that the souls of Goku and Krillin be transported to Earth before getting them resurrected since the dragon balls only resurrect the dead in the place where they had died, and Planet Namek being non-existent, if Goku and Krillin were to be resurrected, they would be resurrected in the locus where Planet Namek used to be, and only the death awaits them immediately afterwards.[38] The transportability of the souls suggests its corporeity, but also when Krillin’s soul was resurrected by the Namekian dragon balls later on Earth after the transportation of his soul, his soul was nowhere to be seen, thus demonstrating both its immateriality (invisibility) and its corporeity (mobility and ability to be in a specific location).[39]
Now, Ginyū’s ultimate attack, Body Change, is essentially the ability to exchange souls with each other. But since souls are invisible to the eyes, it would appear to the audience that it is the bodies that have changed. That what is exchanged is indeed souls is observed from the bodily locations of Goku and Ginyū after the attack takes place, however. For the bodies do not change their respective locations, and we see the souls leaving the bodies and entering into the bodies of the other in the episode.[40]
This brings us to the notion of personal identity and wherein it exists. The example of Ginyū’s attack makes it clear to see what the overarching view is of the souls in Dragon Ball series and helps us also shed light on the Piccolo/Nail identity problem that will be discussed shortly. For the depiction of the souls leaving bodies and moving in space shown in Ginyū’s episode illustrates the view that the memory as well as the consciousness is dragged out with the souls with respect to the personhood. This indicates that the view with regard to the personal identity expounded in Dragon Ball Z is very much similar to the view proposed and argued for by the seventeenth century British philosopher, John Locke, for he says “self is that conscious thinking thing, (whatever Substance, made up of whether Spiritual, or Material, Simple, or Compounded, it matters not) which is sensible, or conscious of Pleasure and Pain, capable of Happiness or Misery, and so is concern’d for it self, as far as that consciousness extends.”[41] What Locke means here is that what constitutes a personhood and the personal identity is no other than the consciousness of the actions past and the present, i.e. the memory of it[42], and in so far as one can trace back its past and be conscious of the present pain and pleasure, that very thing that is conscious of these things is the same person as the one who did those actions one remembers of having done and felt these pain and pleasure in the past. So Goku’s soul in Ginyū’s body, being conscious of everything that has happened as Goku and in so far as that consciousness extends back to Goku as a child and Goku as a week before, is indeed Goku himself. What about Piccolo then, after the merge with Nail? They both seem to share the memory of each’s past and consciousness of past actions and feelings of pain and pleasure in one body. Does this mean that two persons are in one body? According to Locke, yes. But he summarizes such a case as follows: “Any Substance vitally united to the present thinking Being, is a part of that very same self which now is: Any thing united to it by a consciousness of former Action makes also a part of the same self, which is the same both then and now.”[43] This means that Nail’s presence in Piccolo’s body, in so far as they both share and retain consciousnesses of each self as both distinct yet vitally united, supports the view that Piccolo and Nail are one and the same person. This is why their union is substantially bound and cannot be separated even in defeat.
However, Locke, when writing specifically on memory, states that the retention of memory is very weak, although the attention and repetitions of events or ideas definitely help to store these ideas in the mind, such as routine activity. So if not enough contact with the Namekians is there, “Ideas in the Mind quickly fade, and often vanish quite out of the Understanding, leaving no more footsteps or remaining Characters of themselves, than Shadows do flying over the Fields of Corn; and the Mind is as void of them, as if they never had been there.”[44] This explains why Nail only appears audibly to Frieza while Piccolo is fighting against him, and talks to Dende calling him by his name, though in Piccolo’s voice,[45] as if Piccolo had known him for a long time, but Nail’s presence via consciousness in Piccolo’s body seems to completely disappear and replaced by Piccolo’s own memory of Dende whenever he talks to Dende. It is as though the memory of Dende from Nail is completely assimilated into Piccolo’s self in later seasons. This may be due to the fact that these ideas or memories, “if in the future Course of their Lives, they are not repeated again, are quite lost, without the least glimpse remaining of them.”[46] This is also due to the fact that memories are oftentimes passive especially in the cases we are discussing about – Piccolo only remembers and is conscious of Dende’s history or kami’s history when situations present to himself.
IV: The Basic Principles of Political Theories and Its Relevancy to Dragon Ball Z
“I say that justice is simply what is good for the stronger… Every ruling power makes laws for its own good. A democracy makes democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical laws, and so on… If anyone disobeys, they punish him for breaking the law and acting unjustly… in all cities the same thing is just, namely what is good for the ruling authority. This, I take it is where the power lies, and the result is for anyone who looks at it in the right way, that the same thing is just everywhere – what is good for the stronger.”[47] – Thrasymachus
Thus spoke Thrasymachus so (in)famously in the history of political philosophy during the debate with Socrates. This is the essential claim that whoever wins is just and that he who wins through injustice and deception can turn injustice into justice in the end. This claim that justice is what is good for the stronger by Thrasymachus is echoed by a much later Italian political philosopher, Niccolò Machiavelli. In his book, The Prince, he also claims that to be virtuous as a ruler is to be able to do whatever he wants to do and be able to get away with it. Namely, the power combined with deceptions working perfectly in consort. This is also why Glaucon, continuing Thrasymachus’ line of reasoning, says that an unjust man gets the better praise and benefit than a just man who keeps paying taxes and working hard to earn a living. So for Thrasymachus, the definition of what is unjust is given by the mouth of Glaucon playing the devil’s advocate that “if he is going to be really unjust, that he goes about his wrongdoings in the right way, and gets away with it [hence appearing just]. The one who gets caught is to be regarded as incompetent [hence appearing unjust], since perfect injustice consists of appearing to be just when you are not.”[48] This appearing to be just when in fact what you are doing is utterly unjust is a recurring theme in political realism, which basically means “the reign of power”, for Machiavelli, the pioneer of the modern political realism, also speaks of how significant appearance is as a ruler. He argues that it looks of course better to people that a ruler possesses mercifulness, faithfulness, humaneness, honesty and religious commitment. But if the ruler has all those qualities in fact, then it is rather harmful. For if you are merciful, you will spend your people’s tax money to help other countries and not your country necessarily, and such liberality consumes itself in the end; if you are faithful, you will be deceived easily and taken over your state many times; if you are humane, you will use your liberality to consume all your resources to your people and soon you run out of your money and become a burden to your people; if you are honest, you will divulge all the information in foreign diplomacy; and if you are religious, you will turn your other cheek when you get attacked and it will only lead you to destruction. Thus, Machiavelli says that a ruler “should appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, all religion. And nothing is more necessary to appear to have this last quality.”[49] For “[m]en in general judge more by their eyes than by their hands, because seeing is given to everyone, touching to few. Everyone sees how you appear, and few touch what you are; and these few dare not to oppose the opinion of many who have the majesty of the state to defend them.”[50] This is also why Machiavelli praised so much of Agathocles the Sicilian[51] who became the king of Syracuse with his appearance of kingly dignity and virtue, or cunningness. For Agathocles assembled one morning all the senates under the disguise of discussion pertinent to the republic. But having given his old military ally earlier of his secret plan to gain power, as soon as all the senators and the richest of the people had been gathered, Agathocles with a mere single order had them all killed with his soldiers.[52] This is what it is to be virtuous: ability to do wrong and get away with it while appearing just. This coincides with Thrasymachus’ point expounded by Glaucon that the perfectly unjust person would do wrongdoings and get away with them yet he would still appear just. This is the realism of international politics, and this is how the international actors play to gain what is most precious to them: power.
What does this have to do with Dragon Ball Z, one might ask? It has everything to do with Dragon Ball Z precisely because a realist politics is the quest for power. And that which can grant the ultimate power is the dragon balls. What Agathocles did, for instance, is almost exactly the same with what Frieza did to the destruction of Planet Vegeta.[53] So this is particularly important in the Frieza saga where Frieza wants to seize power, Vegeta wants to outdo Frieza by getting the dragon balls before Frieza does, while Krillin and Gohan want the dragon balls to end all wars and bring peace. Namekians are also in fear of getting killed. Essentially, Planet Namek is an interplay of dynamics much like that of a visualization of Hobbes’ view of the world before Leviathan where each man is against each other, except this was not the case prior to Frieza’s arrival. And in such an anarchical world, where there is no ruling authority present, but each is fending for himself, “all fear for their security; industry is impossible; and life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” This description almost fits perfectly in the narrative of Planet Namek, for “[a]ll exist in fear since sovereignty is depended on one’s own capabilities and ability to deter others from trying to destroy or enslave you… Order, if it is ever achieved in an anarchical realm, comes from one fundamental source: power.”[54]
Without a doubt, this type of power politics, i.e. virtue as descried above, is embedded throughout the Frieza saga, for one can easily see deceptions, betrayal, cunningness, clever contrivances and co-operation in getting the dragon balls. This is why I earlier mentioned its similarity with actual historical events is striking and with the most recent large war that included many nations with their own agenda, much like what happens in the Frieza saga, is found in the World War II. I may talk about as much as I want about what Frieza saga can be about without any historical reference or actual events that occurred, but then, it would just be imagination and lacks a unique familiarity that would resonate with the readers. This is why I decided to talk about the Great Wars and totalitarianism as the ultimate form of power politics involving the nations all around us. And this is why I find the Vegeta and Frieza sagas to be a quite accurate description of how the international actors would actually act during international conflicts. Now, I also said in the earlier section that liberalism would also be explained amply. This is why I included co-operation in the description of power politics. Politics is about power, but there is more to it than how the political realism is described above, the reasoning with which Frieza and Vegeta are most likely associated. Krillin and Gohan did not come to Planet Namek for a selfish reason such as wanting a supreme power, but they came to the planet to resurrect those who were killed by the evil force. This shows compassion and selfless act. Further, they are willing to co-operate with the bad guys if necessary, unlike Glaucon’s perfectly unjust man. This becomes obvious when Krillin and Gohan team up with Vegeta as well, for he does not act solely for power but also with prudence.[55]
Liberalism is a hard to define term since it keeps changing as the standard of life progresses. However, here we are only concerned with the fundamental beliefs embodied in the term liberalism, so I will try to be brief. To be liberal is to be accepting many ideas, implying pluralistic society and individuals. From this, you can surmise that democratic governments tend to be liberal, for in fact liberalism is normally used for a substitute for democratic peace. But again, this democratic peace theory only works if all nations are democratic – in other words, although democracies do not fight each other, they might fight tyrannical governments or totalitarian movements since they pose a threat to the global peace. It is generally agreed that “democracies have a separate peace and are more likely to co-operate with each other in alliances and economic relations… thus mutual respect for human right develop among democracies in world politics” as a result.[56] This is a classic character development theme in the Dragon Ball series. As long as “some trust in the enemy’s way of thinking must be preserved even in the midst of war, [such as respect]… no peace can ever be concluded and the hostilities would become a war of extermination.[57] This is why it is impossible to team up with Frieza while it was possible to team up with Vegeta for the reasons I will expound later.[58] Further, liberal democratic ideas accept pluralism, which means that “autonomous individuals might choose a great variety of very different, but equally good lives,” and that “the kind of autonomous individual they admired can only become a fully autonomous being by exercising his or her powers of choice… [and] a person incapable of making a choice and sticking to it will have little chance of leading a happy life.”[59] You may recall the scene where Krillin, after the first transformation of Frieza, chose to sacrifice himself in order to save Dende, to which Vegeta thought it foolish because Krillin risked his life for someone else, which is contrary to the core belief of the political realism idea that everyone has the natural right to preserve one’s own life. Frieza and Vegeta and many enemies in the series still operate under this strict fundamental principle of self-preservation as the first and irrevocable right. This is what divides liberal democracy from other sorts of government, i.e. Frieza holds a totalitarian idea of subduing everything with terror and is more likened to a tyrannical government, while Vegeta is particularly obsessed with elitism and those who are born elite should hold power, which is more akin to an aristocratic government.[60] Primarily, however, it seems to be agreed upon that “the advocacy of the denial of toleration as a matter of right divides the liberal and the non-liberal more sharply than anything else.”[61] Even though sacrificing himself to save Dende, Krillin seems to have lost rather than gained the chance of leading a happy life, contrary to what I have just mentioned. But again, leading a happy life is not determined by wealth or power, or even less at the specific moment in life but in life in its entirely, thus, a happy life is rather determined by being fully autonomous and being able to choose in accordance with his or her own moral beliefs, or better yet, actions derived from empathy. As a proof, in the end, Krillin did end up living happily in the later series.
It may seem rather strange to many that I associated Vegeta with aristocratic tendency above. For aristocracy is without a doubt a rule by hereditary elites, best qualified to serve for the people, but we have seen that Vegeta does not care about his people. Vegeta killed Nappa as soon as the latter became useless, he also looked down on Goku as a lower-class warrior and he deemed Goku as eliminated since he disobeyed the elite class Saiyans. Vegeta’s actions were in accordance with more oligarchic than aristocratic attitudes, hence I earlier classified Vegeta as acting at the level of Primitive Saiyan Philosophy. This is certainly true in Vegeta saga, but in Frieza saga, Vegeta’s character becomes more ambiguous and unexpected at times. While he hated so much of the earthlings at first, he let Krillin and Gohan go unharmed when Krillin gave a dragon ball to him, and he eventually teamed up with the earthlings against the common enemy, Frieza. Yet, he still tried to betray everyone at the first chance he sees beneficial to do so, as he did when Goku fought with Ginyū. It seems that Vegeta is certainly spontaneous and unreadable what he might do, yet it is also true that there is a liberal tendency growing within him as well. For he did save Krillin and Gohan in the battle against Guldo and advised Gohan to flee in the battle against Frieza, whatever his intention may have been.[62] Perhaps, as strange as it sounds, it may be best described that Vegeta is likened as either liberal-oligarchy or aristocratic-oligarchy in his actions.
Before moving on to the episode analysis in the following chapter [NOTE: for this analysis/exposition, see Appendix II, as it is literally an analysis episode by episode to further support my thesis but is very long, hence I divided it into a standalone piece for those who need concrete proof that my thesis is supported at here], in order to understand the dynamics fully, one more thing needs to be talked about: that is, types of soldiers one employs. This plays a crucial and pivotal role in Dragon Ball Z series, but in particular with the Frieza saga where betrayal and deceptions are constant. Aforementioned Niccolò Machiavelli, in his book, The Prince, gives advice to the future prince how to seek power, get power and maintain power. Because even if you get the power, if you lose it immediately, your action is in vain. In order to get power, you need military, soldiers and allies to defeat the enemies. A good commander in chief needs to know what sort of military is best suited to acquire and maintain power. Who did Frieza have as his subordinates? Were they royal? Why or why not? What kind of allies did Krillin and Gohan have? Were they successful? What about Vegeta? Was he acting on his own or did he have allies at all? These are the pertinent questions in understanding why Frieza eventually lost and why Goku was able to defeat him. Is there history behind Frieza saga that can help us explain the interplays between these actors? These are the questions I would like to discuss in the next few paragraphs.
How many kinds of military are there? That would be the first question to come to mind. In fact, there are very few types. They are either mercenaries or auxiliary or mixed, or one’s own soldiers. As expected, the best among these is the soldiers of one’s own. How are they different, though? And why are the others bad? In what way? In general, mercenaries are hired for money, as it were, a “part-time” army. Auxiliary forces are the ones sent from your allies to help and defend you. Machiavelli claims rationally and frankly that “Mercenary and auxiliary arms are useless and dangerous… for they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, unfaithful; bold among friends, among enemies cowardly.”[63] This appears to be the case with almost all the lower-class subordinates under Frieza as seen in various episodes already mentioned and will be mentioned in the next chapter. This is why Frieza never hesitated to kill them at one stroke when he destroyed Planet Vegeta, even though there were many of his henchmen fighting Bardock, the father of Goku.[64] They are working for Frieza but mostly only because Frieza promised them something valuable, like the preservation of their respective race as one Tsufurian has said.[65] It is true that they want to be your soldiers while not in the war, but when war comes, they either flee or leave.[66] Machiavelli also adds that mercenary captains are either excellent men or not, in the former case, perhaps like Zarbon or Dodoria, as it is obvious from what has been talked about that they too were handpicked by Frieza to serve him since they have names of Tsufurians. When they are excellent, “you cannot trust them because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their patron, or by oppressing others contrary to your intention.”[67] Again, in the same way, even Ginyū Special Force too is said to belong to the mercenary soldiers, even though they act like they are Frieza’s own soldiers. That they are mercenaries is evidenced when Guldo reflects on the past when he was being bullied by Vegeta and Frieza ignored Guldo but favoured Vegeta to come with him to talk about colonizing another planet.[68] Clearly, Frieza does not care about Ginyū Special Force and cared a stronger and more astute soldier, Vegeta. In sum, when you rely on mercenary arms, “ruin is postponed only as long as attack is postponed… [and] the cause of this is that they have no love nor cause to keep them in the field other than a small stipend, which is not sufficient to make them want to die for you.”[69] In fact, all of Frieza’s force consists of mercenary forces, except for the Saiyans. For Saiyans were the warrior class race of its own and had a king who was forced into helping and aiding Frieza. This makes them auxiliary forces rather than mercenary forces.
Auxiliary forces are those of a power that is called to come to with its arms to help and defend you, as has been said. They are the other useless arms because “they are all united, all resolved to obey someone else,” as was obvious when King Vegeta finally took an action against Frieza to defeat him. For the very fact that the auxiliary arms are sent to aid you by someone else as their leader, it is dangerous to employ them as your main militia. For in the case of “mercenary arms, when they have won, [they] need more time and greater opportunity to hurt you, since they are not one whole body and have been found and paid for by you,” as you can see that the Frieza’s men are mixed with Tsufurians, Saiyans and other races from various planets, and it is very difficult to unite various races with different backgrounds to turn against the prince. In short, “in mercenary arms laziness is more dangerous; in auxiliary arms, virtue is.”[70]
From what has been said, it is obvious that mixed arms too are inferior to having one’s own arms. For even if the arms are mixed with part mercenary and part your own, although these arms may be much better than simple auxiliary arms or simple mercenary arms, “without its own arms no principality is secure,” and “it is wholly obliged to fortune since it does not have virtue to defend itself in adversity.”[71] In other words, “nothing is so infirm and unstable as fame for power not sustained by one’s own force.”[72]
V: A Philosophy of Dragon Ball Z
In this way, the thesis put forward at the beginning of this article is defended, that is, the conclusion is naturally contained in the initial event in such a way that everything that occurs subsequently is pre-established, i.e. inclined, without being necessitated. That this is so has been shown with ample examples in consultation with the episodes. Each individual acts out of his own freewill insofar as such action does not involve a contradiction. This in turn inclines an agent to act in a certain way in accordance with his or her dispositions to respond to the environment, though such action is not determined in the sense that it is necessitated. Each agent has a range of options to choose from at any given moment, reflective of his or her immediate states. Thus, when Bulma learns on Earth, alongside with the Namekians and Vegeta, that Goku and Krillin could not be brought back to life even with the Namekian dragon balls, Vegeta is seen to be having two completely different sets of reactions for one specific event. In the sequence immediately following the discovery that the dead would be resurrected only in the place where they died, Vegeta bursts into laughing with triumph in his realization that he has attained the universal reign with the possibility of Goku getting resurrected crumbled.[73] However, the following episode begins from the moment at which Bulma is informed by Kaiō-sama of the impossibility of Goku’s resurrection, obviously retelling the same scene but with a radically different response from Vegeta. In this version, Vegeta offers a practical solution to the problem posed by the apparent paradox, which is that when the souls of Goku and Krillin get resurrected, because they died on Planet Namek, which is no longer present, both Goku and Krillin would simultaneously cease to exist at the very moment when they are brought back to life. As was mentioned in Chapter 3 of this article, Dragon Ball Z series takes a mind-body dualism as a given. As such, Vegeta reasons that the souls be transported to Earth first and then they resurrect Goku and Krillin.[74] Now, these are not only remarkably distinct but also contradictory reactions from the same person on the same issue. Contradictory, that is to say, to themselves and not with respect to the agent. It is conceivable that Vegeta takes either action in a given plotline, but it is not possible for him to take both of these actions within the same given universe. The reason for there being two versions may be for a technical adjustment or to imprint on the audience the two contrary states of emotions in Vegeta. The fact that Vegeta has long waited to reign over the universe upon defeating Frieza and Goku has been evident from the history of the Saiyan race and how proud Vegeta feels about his pedigree. However, it is also consistent with the Saiyan Philosophy to want to see what a stronger enemy than himself would fight like. Indeed, Vegeta gives the reason for suggesting a solution as the latter. That is to say, not because he wanted to be the strongest of all in the entire universe, but because he wanted to see what a legendary Super Saiyan is like, perhaps to find out how to become one himself. The story proceeds with the latter version of the scenario, in which everyone regains hope with the suggestion Vegeta offered.
Now, whatever the reasons behind airing two versions of the same event with different outcomes may be, what is of interest to us is how that still made sense to us as viewers. Furthermore, how can it be argued with consistency that Vegeta could have acted in two completely different ways? For have we not argued that all the actions are contained in the subject, thereby everything being entailed by everything else? Just as it would not be possible to imagine a square circle, would it not also be impossible to imagine Vegeta on the one hand claiming a victory and on the other hand offering a solution to bring Goku back to life? The answer is quite simple. These two versions did not strike us as peculiarly contradictory because they are not contradictory actions to the agent. The argument for soft-determinism makes it so that an action is the outcome of freewill, while at the same time, such an action is pre-established and is contained in the subject, making the action nothing but an inevitable consequence of unfolding events dictated by the previous statuses and the perceptions of the said agent. It is often deemed that this view itself is contradictory and that soft-determinism is an oxymoron. However, these two episodes in Dragon Ball Z make it clear that soft-determinism need not be impossible. For both versions reflect and are rooted in the immediately preceding status of Vegeta’s psychological states, i.e. manifold of perceptions. It is entirely conceivable that Vegeta could act in the way he did in the first version, whose consequence is that Gohan gets angry at Vegeta and they begin to fight against one another. Such an activity is consistent with Vegeta’s personal character, i.e. it does not involve a contradiction with Vegeta’s being. It is also consistent, however, with Vegeta’s personal character to ridicule the intelligence of the Earthlings by suggesting that what is at issue is not that difficult to solve if one thinks about it rationally. Hence, it follows that both of those actions could might as well have followed from the immediate states of Vegeta’s essence, as it were. Since neither of the actions undertaken by Vegeta in two different versions is inconsistent or contradictory with his essence, and since they both express Vegeta’s being adequately, they both may well have actually taken place. This is a thought experiment carried out skillfully to see if an agent can act differently from how he or she has actually acted without changing his or her being substantially. Even though the story settled with Vegeta taking the second version of the response, it shows that he could have acted differently without contradicting his own essence, which proves that the choices can be made at our own freewill without being necessarily determined at the same time. This is because neither of his actions would involve contradiction. An example of which is that one cannot be and not be at the same place at the same time, which is a logical inconsistency and impossibility even in thought, viz. the notion of a square circle is contradictory to itself since the definition of a circle is such that it does not have four sides, which is requisite of a square. An object’s being square necessarily entails that it has four sides and such a square object cannot be a circle without changing its definition, i.e. its substance. Since it cannot happen that I am here and not here at the same time, but one of which must be true at all times, what involves a logical contradiction cannot happen. For example, no matter how hard I may try to fly, the ability to fly on my own is contradictory to my being as a kind of being that I am, hence it cannot happen. This does not mean that I do not have a choice in the sense that I cannot make a choice as an autonomous being. It only means that if I were able to make that choice to fly on my own, I would have to change my being substantially and essentially so that I would not be the same I who wished to fly when I have made such a choice.
On the contrary, I could freely choose either to have coffee or to have tea without altering my being substantially. I would still be the same I who wished to have coffee even if I chose to have tea in the end. It would still be consistent with who I am to choose between coffee and tea at a particular moment, even though I may be inclined to have tea now because I just had coffee a while ago, or whatever prior states I have been in. Vegeta’s different actions are similarly posited. It could go either way, given that he is the kind of person that he is. This is how there can be two aspects of Vegeta without interrupting the plot, both of which are thoroughly consistent with his being, while eventually ascribing Vegeta one version over the other as if that had always been the case.[75] The question Dragon Ball Z series is asking is not “Do we not have choices because of our biological and physiological limitations?” but “What kind of options do we have, given that the kind of being that we are?” The series is more concerned about the freewill predicated by qualities possessed and displayed by each actor. In doing so, it advances the argument for freewill amid our biological constitutions. For otherwise there will be no choice making, and where there is no choice making, there cannot be a room for ethics. But as I have said in the beginning, Goku embodies the epitome of a moral agent in potentiality, and we are experiencing the unfolding of his moral being in actuality.
I have primarily argued for and advanced in this paper three arguments, all of which are supported by the incontrovertibility of the ways in which the story unfolds. One is that all events are contained in and naturally follow from a single event, which is itself a result of many other events preceding to it. Second is an elaboration of the first in history that Dragon Ball Z accurately depicts how the self-interested individuals behave towards one another. Lastly, although each event is contained in the previous state or states, just as a predicate is contained in the subject, these events are at the same time the reflection of freewill exercised by the characters according to his or her own disposition. First and foremost, the fundamental principle latent in the series is that every event is a logical result of the previous state such that, given the premise has taken place, what succeeds is an event that flow from it naturally. This indeed seems to give some restrictions on the freedom to choose, for although it is granted that only what is contradictory does not happen, these natural occurrences emanate from the qualities inherent in each character. So, if I have decided to drink coffee over tea, because that is what I have decided out of my natural inclinations dictated by the kind of state or states I had been in, I could not have decided to have tea any way. It would seem ridiculous to suggest that I could have in actuality chosen to have tea instead of coffee in the world where I did not choose to have the latter, however non-contradictory such an alternative decision may be. Here, Dragon Ball Z outlines its principal view that things could not have been different from they actually are. The way I can argue that Dragon Ball Z in fact argues for the possibility of the characters making another choice that is consistent with the character traits possessed by each actor is by appealing to the instances where an alternative universe is depicted that does not get scriptually jammed, as it were. This is why the future in which Goku has died of heart disease and the androids reign over the world makes sense and can even co-exist with the timeline that actually occurred. The moment when this exercise of freewill is overtly manifest and advanced is undoubtedly the time when Vegeta reacts with an insult upon hearing Goku’s death at the end of Frieza saga in one episode and redoes the same scene with a different response in the following episode, as has been discussed. Even without this obvious attempt to display the existence of freewill in the series, however, we see the characters constantly ask themselves whether to fight or to flee, for example, at any point in the story. Those options entertained by the characters are not forced upon them but rather flow naturally out of their very being. This is most illustrated in the sequence where everyone is still in search for the dragon balls, trying to deceive and outdo the others. This logical possibility to have a variety of choices is what makes the story exciting and attention grabbing. For we, as audience, contemporaneously observe with the characters that the characters faced with these options can make a choice that they may not have ultimately chosen. This certain unpredictability in their making choices is what thrills us and keeps us guessing even if we know rather antecedently that the main characters will win somehow. It is when this ‘somehow’ is explained supernaturally or extraordinarily that the story appears no longer believable or interesting. On the contrary, it is when the ways in which the projected outcome takes place is explained logically, i.e. flows naturally, that we find the story powerfully convincing and authentic.
This pre-established harmony, to borrow Leibniz’s terminology, inherent in Dragon Ball Z is what holds the story together. This logical consistency in the story in turn helps us reflect on the historical and social events in our own society, reinforcing the idea that we cannot have acted in any other way than we actually have. Often it is debated whether or not the end result may have differed had either of the Allies or the Axis of Evil acted differently during the second world war. Whether or not the future state of the world depended solely upon a personal whim, as it were, that is merely arbitrary and situational. But just as the cause of such an atrocity in which millions of people died cannot be attributed to the will of one man, the causes are innumerable and not one of them deserves to be called the cause of all what happened.[76] Indeed, to let ourselves be lost in the endless conjectures of what the past could have been is nothing but a meaningless retrospection, not because the past could not be changed but because the choices we have made are inclined to have occurred out of our own volition, however dependent on the constant bond with the others they may seem.[77] Lurking under such belief is the conviction that we would not change the past, even if we could, because we expressed ourselves in each decision we have consciously made. Just as the international states acted for its own gain and preservation, so did the actors in Dragon Ball Z act in order to secure his own interest. Sometimes it is utter selfishness, while other times it is out of love for the others. These interplays, imbued with intentions for situating ourselves in the world at large, converge into and form the present at every moment.
Bibliography for A Philosophy of Dragon Ball Z
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt, Inc., 1966.
Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics.” The Complete Works of Aristotle Vol. II. Edited by Jonathan Burnes. Translated by W. D. Ross. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Hegel, G. W. H. The Philosophy of History. Edited by C. J. Friedrich. Translated by J. Sibree. NT: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994.
Machivelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Leibniz, G. W. Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays. Translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1991.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace. Translated by Ted Humphrey. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1983.
Miller, Helen V. “International Relations.” A Contemporary Political Philosophy. Edited by Robert E. Gooding, Philip Pettit, Thomas Pogge. USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Plato. The Republic. Edited by G. R. F. Ferrari. Translated by Tom Griffith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Ryan, Alan. “Liberalism.” A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Edited by Robert E. Gooding, Philip Pettit, Thomas Pogge. USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Tolstoy, Leo. Ear and Peace. Edited by Amy Mandelker. Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude. NY: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Visual Source
Written by Koyama Takao. Based on the manga by Toriyama Akira. Episodes 1-107, 129, 152. Dragon Ball Z. Produced by Shimizu Kenji and Kaneda Koji. Directed by Nishio Daisuke. Fuji TV. April 26th, 1989 – September 11, 1991.
Written by Koyama Takao and Sumisawa Katsuyuki. Based on the manga by Toriyama Akira. Dragon Ball Z: Bardock – The Father of Goku. Directed by Hashimoto Mitsuo. Fuji TV. October 17, 1990.
Written by Toda Hiroshi. Based on the manga by Toriyama Akira. Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks. Directed by Ueda Yoshihiro. Fuji TV. February 24, 1993.
[1] See Immanuel Kant, who argues that “No treaty of peace that tacitly reserves issues for a future war shall be held valid. For if it were the case, it would be a mere truce, a suspension of hostilities… A Peace treaty nullifies all existing causes of war, even if they are unknown to the contracting parties… When one or both parties to a peace treaty… has a mental reservation concerning some presently unmentioned pretension that will be revived at the first opportune moment, since ill will between the warring parties still remains, that reservation is a bit of mere Jesuitical casuistry.” Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals. Trans. Ted Humphrey (USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1983), p.107.
[2] Leibniz argues that there are two ways in which we can speak of necessity. “The one whose contrary implies a contradiction is absolutely necessary; this deduction occurs in the external truths, for example, the truth of geometry. The other is necessary only ex hypothesi and, so to speak, accidentally, but it is contingent in itself, since its contrary does not imply a contradiction… [so that] if one were to do the contrary, he would not be doing something impossible in itself.” Leibniz, “Discourse on Metaphysics,” in Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays, trans. Daniel Garber and Roger Ariew (USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1991), p.13. See my footnote 3 for more on this below.
[3] “Predicate is contained in the subject” in this case can be thought of as “Goku defeated Frieza.” Defeating Frieza is the predicate, and the subject is Goku. In this way, it was inevitable that the story developed accordingly.
[4] Soft-determinism in this sense differs from hard-determinism in that the former is a natural occurrence, the unfolding events given that the characters have all these qualities, while the latter type of determinism does not care about what qualities each character may have. Hard-determinism is indifferent to external influences, whereas soft-determinism is dictated by the natural phenomena and individual qualities. It is in this sense Leibniz argued that, in soft-determinism, you would not be doing anything contradictory to your character had you done something that you did not in fact do. This is because what you did at a particular moment in life is always a dictation of the natural phenomena occurring not just in you but also around you.
[5] The difference between political realism and liberalism will be explained in the fourth segment of this essay.
[6] This abstract ideology Hitler adhered to is attributed to Vegeta in the Vegeta saga but the same ideology becomes more appropriate to attribute to Frieza in the Frieza saga, which is why it is important to emphasize that I am not talking about the particular person as such but only the ideology by which a certain individual has acted.
[7] EP22.
[8] Which is also why Vegeta and Nappa found out about the dragon balls on Earth, since Raditz could not imagine Goku would sacrifice himself to save his son, to which Piccolo responded Goku can be resurrected with the dragon balls. Frieza found out in the similar way about the dragon balls on Planet Namek when Vegeta mentioned about going to Planet Namek to get the dragon balls after seeing Piccolo on Earth.
[9] Semi-literally, it means “cultivation rangers” which is why they are grown out of seeds in the soil.
[10] In the process of defeating six pet monsters, Yamcha was killed, and in the battle against Nappa, Chaotzu and Tenshinhan too were killed, and their bodies and souls went to the planet where Kaio-sama lives in order to train to be stronger like Goku. Piccolo will go there as well eventually, but since their death is not relevant here, I will skip the discussion.
[11] A body is said to be preserved materially without quantity by God so the individual soul can find its own corpse un-decomposed when revived and get back to, as it were, the body formerly possessed by it. This is what happened to the body of Christ, whose body had suffered the absence of the soul for three days until Christ was resurrected. Ordinarily, the body unoccupied by a soul would decay and rot, but God can preserve a body in such a way that the corpse would remain afresh, i.e. as a glorified body. For further detail, see my discussions on the Eucharist in the history of philosophy here: https://isseicreekphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/history-and-philosophy-of-transubstantiation/
[12] EP26, an obvious reference to the World War II; in Japanese, Krillin said “Tokkōtai (特攻隊)” and the English translation is more specifically termed as “Japanese Special Attack Units,” but it is often used to mean kamikaze attacks during the World War II.
[13] EP24, again the lesson is that we should not pretend that what is terrible is not happening.
[14] See Dragon Ball Z, “Lesson Number One,” episode 29, 2006. Nappa did receive several blows from Goku, but it is obvious from the episode that all that took Goku was one blow with Kaio-ken.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Senzu bean is a miraculous bean that heals the wounded and restores the power both mental and physical to the one who has consumed it. Senzu (仙豆) literally means “the bean of the wise medicine man”
[17] This is later discussed more in detail with Frieza’s handling of his subordinates. But in particular, Frieza exterminated almost the entire race of Saiyans when they became stronger and disobedient to Frieza.
[18] Hannah Arendt, “Totalitarian Movement” in The Origins of Totalitarianism, 351-352.
[19] This is actually seen in EP96 when Frieza’s henchmen on Planet Frieza were informed that Frieza might have been killed, presumably a Tsufurian exclaimed in joy that “Frieza is now dead, who has killed our race, and we now have a new age coming!” to which another Tsufurian responded with rage, claiming that “Frieza-sama has promised us prosperity to our race!” For more information on what happened between Frieza and Tsufurians, see my other article on Categories and Races and the Meanings of the Names in Dragon Ball Z at https://isseicreekphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/appendix-i-categories-of-races-and-the-meanings-of-the-names-in-dragon-ball-z/
[20] Arendt, 398.
[21] Arendt, 360-361, footnote. This is a paraphrase of an excerpt from Hitler’s declaration during the war that read: “I am nothing but a magnet constantly moving across the German nation and extracting the steel from this people. And I have often stated that the time will come when all worth-while men in Germany are going to be in my camp. And those who will not be in my camp are worthless anyway.”
[22] Arendt, “Totalitarianism in Power”, 422. Arendt calls these resistances from within the real enemies as opposed to those enemies who must be liquidated on the ideological ground of the movement, which is termed as “objective enemies”, i.e. the Jews, the homosexuals, the mentally sick, the physically weak, etc…
[23] See EP78.
[24] As opposed to a real enemy who is an actual political party or individuals who could physically destroy you, an objective enemy is purely on the ideological ground. A real enemy in Nazis Germany is anyone who opposes the Nazis politically, but an objective enemy is someone whose existence is contrary to the purity of Nazis’ ideology.
[25] Arendt, 455.
[26] While liberals do not have a single view of what counts as a good life for all, this is because they have mostly been empiricists and learn from experience what is conducive to individual flourishing, “and also because liberals have often been pluralists and have thought that autonomous individuals might choose a great variety of very different, but equally good lives” and they believe that a truly autonomous being is made possible by exercising their power of choice. This is why liberals are freer to act spontaneously, and thus sometimes renders them variables, so “a person incapable making a choice and sticking to it will have a little chance of leading a happy life.” See Alan Ryan, “Liberalism” in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E. Gooding, Philip Pettit, Thomas Pogge (USA; Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 374.
[27] See EP53
[28] See Hannah Arendt for phrases of totalitarian government, roughly, p.p.419~423.
[29] EP95
[30] EP96
[31] EP129
[32] “Fusion” in Dragon Ball Z is a technical term, and I will only use the term “fusion” and it is also used in the storyline. Otherwise, I will use the term “merging” or “union” to make a distinction.
[33] EP152
[34] EP71, where Ginyū hurt himself in order to change the body of Goku with his own body, by exchanging souls into each other’s bodies.
[35] This is somewhat a notion loosely shared among philosophers like Locke and Leibniz (in the form of consciousness or memory) in the Western philosophy and Enryō Inoue as well as Buddhist thinkers in the Eastern philosophy.
[36] That the body Goku possessed when he was dead is a different type of body from what he had when he was alive is obvious from what Kaiō said to Tenshinhan during the training at Kaiō’s planet. When Tenshinhan was worried about Chaotzu being beaten by Piccolo, Kaiō said not to worry about him, because “the pain is just a reminiscence of the time when they were alive; it will disappear soon.” This at least suggests that while the body was spiritual, it possessed, however weak and fading, sense-perception of corporeal body. See EP55.
[37] EP6.
[38] EP105.
[39] EP106.
[40] EP71.
[41] John Locke, 341.
[42] Whether for Locke, consciousness means memory or even slightly implies is an ongoing philosophical debate among the Lockean scholars, though it appears that memory is not to be included in the consciousness is the accepted norm in academia, but I am not convinced that, even slightly, memory does not play a role in the consciousness and in the identity of the personhood yet.
[43] John Locke, 346.
[44] John Locke, 151.
[45] In EP80, Piccolo tells Dende to hide so as not to get Dende involved in the battle that was about to begin. Further in EP81, when Piccolo tells Frieza, “we know your moves,” referring to the fight against Frieza Nail had had earlier. Then, Nail’s voice comes out mocking Frieza that “you said you would only use one hand, but you now use two hands on top of becoming bigger with transformation, and is this all you’ve got?”
[46] Locke, 151.
[47] Plato, The Republic, Bk.I, 338c-339a
[48] Plato, The Republic, 361a. The brackets and the italics inside the brackets mine
[49] Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, “In What Mode Faith Should Be Kept By Princes”, pp.70-71
[50] Ibid.
[51] “Agathocles lived from 361 to 289 B.C.; his tyranny began in 316,” quoted from Machiavelli’s footnote, p.34.
[52] Machiavelli, The Prince, “Of Those Who Have Attained a Principality through Crimes”, pp34-35
[53] Special episode, Dragon Ball Z: Bardock the Father of Goku
[54] Helen V. Miller, “International Relations” in A Contemporary Political Philosophy, 216.
[55] This will be an interesting topic to be developed later on as Vegeta’s personality begins to change in the later seasons.
[56] Miller, 217.
[57] Kant, Perpetual Peace, p.110, [brackets] mine
[58] see section 5, segment 2 at the very end in this essay.
[59] Alan Ryan, “Liberalism”, in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, p.374
[60] Vegeta’s case is very hard to define at this moment. I used the term ‘aristocracy’ to associate Vegeta only because his future actions, in retrospect, make this a more plausible category to put him in. There are roughly speaking, six types of government. Three good ones and three bad ones, each corresponding as the contrary form of governing. The former includes monarchy (ruled by one king), aristocracy (ruled by few elites or best qualified, hereditary nobility), polity (ruled by politically informed mass of people); the latter includes tyranny (ruled by a dictator), oligarchy (ruled by few privileged persons for selfish and corrupt purposes), and democracy (ruled by ignorant many, i.e. people). See Aristotle’s Politics for more on the advantages and disadvantages on these types of governments.
[61] Alan Ryan, “Liberalism”, p. 369. Italics mine.
[62] EP79, after Gohan attacked Frieza out of rage.
[63] Machiavelli, “How Many Kinds of Military There Are and Concerning Mercenary Soldiers” in The Prince, p.48
[64] Special episode Dragon Ball Z: Bardock the Father of Goku. Also Apūru and Zarbon, Dodoria all seem to be bold among friends of the same rank but when they are defeated they are very cowardly.
[65] See my footnote 11.
[66] Machiavelli, p.49.
[67] Ibid.
[68] EP 62.
[69] Machiavelli, p.48-49. See also my footnote 51.
[70] Machiavelli, p.55. again, virtue here means cunningness and the ability to get away with anything.
[71] Machiavelli, p.57.
[72] Tacitus, quoted by Machiavelli, p57.
[73] EP105.
[74] EP106.
[75] The similar device is used in the special episode, Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks, where it tells the story of an alternative plotline in which Goku dies of a heart disease and the world is destroyed by the androids. This too is possible because dying of a disease is not contradictory to Goku’s being but it is a scenario that could be conceived of without changing Goku’s being substantially and essentially. But this will be discussed about more in detail in another treatise.
[76] See Leo Tolstoy, Appendix, “Some Words about War and Peace,” War and Peace, where he argues exactly on this point when he says “To say (which seems to everyone very simple) that the causes of the events of 1812 lay in Napoleon’s dominating disposition and the patriotic firmness of the Emperor Alexander I, is as meaningless as to say that the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire were that a certain barbarian led his people westwards and a certain Roman emperor ruled his State badly, or that an immense hill that was being levelled toppled over because the last labourer struck it with his spade.” Tolstoy advances this argument using historical events of War of 1812 in his entire book in War and Peace, 1314-1315.
[77] Ibid.
[…] A Philosophical Interpretation of Dragon Ball Z: Vegeta & Frieza Saga Appendix II: Episode Analysis in Dragon Ball Z […]